Lasers, lights and acne
Most acne patients notice an improvement in their acne over the summer, although unfortunately it doesn’t last long. Ultraviolet light (phototherapy) has long been used in the management of acne, as has superficial radiotherapy. However, the well-established long-term side effects of radiotherapy, and the concerns around the skin cancer risks of ultraviolet light/sun beds, have limited their use.
The last few years however, have seen an increased interest in the use of light and laser therapy for acne. There are two main mechanisms that laser/light treatments may help acne:
- By destroying Propionibacterium acnes through a photodynamic therapy (PDT) reaction
- By destroying the sebaceous glands / entire pilosebaceous unit
To date, many studies have shown early promise, with improvements in the 50-75% range. However, most of the trials have been fairly small, of short duration and with relatively short follow-up periods. Few have had the opportunity to assess long term outcomes and, very importantly, long term complications/side-effects.
It is difficult to know where lasers/lights will eventually fit in the overall management of acne vulgaris. For some individuals, they are likely to be beneficial, although very few comparative studies have been made with conventional medical treatment.
Lasers/lights that destroy P. acnes through a photodynamic therapy (PDT) reaction
The mechanism of action
It is known that the bacteria present in some acne lesions, P. acnes, produce chemicals called porphyrins during their growth and proliferation in the skin pore (follicular unit). These porphyrins may contribute to how non-inflamed acne lesions become inflamed.
It is thought that the two main porphyrins involved are protoporphyrin IX (PpIX) and coproporphyrin III. Both of these chemicals absorb light at 415nm (the Soret band), which corresponds to the blue range of the visible light spectrum, and to 630nm, which corresponds to red light.
Photo-excitation of these porphyrins, from exposure to an appropriate light source, will form singlet oxygen (free radicals) within the bacteria, which then selectively destroy them, thereby hopefully improving the clinical signs of the acne.
Types of light / laser sources
There are a number of light and lasers being investigated. These include:
- Blue and red light sources
- Green light lasers
- Yellow light lasers
- Intense pulsed light (IPL) sources
- Radiofrequency (RF) devices
Blue light machines
There are a number of units that produce ‘Blue’ light. These tend to be high-intensity, narrow-band blue light source in the 405nm-420nm range.
Several studies have shown some benefit:
- 30 patients received x2/week for 5 weeks – 64% decrease acne lesions
- 35 patients x2/week for 4 weeks – 80% of patients had significant improvement
- 40 patients x2/week; 3 months following their last treatment – 43% decrease in inflammatory lesions.
- 12 patients x2/week (6 min); 2 weeks after the final treatment – 40% decrease in papules, 65% decrease in pustules, 62% decrease in comedones
- Multicenter study of blue light system vs. topical 1% clindamycin – blue light therapy was more effective than the topical clindamycin in decrease inflammatory acne lesions.
Green light lasers
At 532 and 532/1064 nm, several green light lasers have been studied.
11 patients in a split-face prospective, randomized clinical trial. 4 treatments at 7-9J/cm2 utilizing a 4mm spot size and pulse duration of 20msec with parallel contact cooling. 6-10 passes over the half-treated face.
At 1 month:
- Acne lesion counts decreased 35.9% vs. 11.8%.
- Sebum excretion rate (SER) decreased 28.1% vs. 6.4% control
Yellow light sources
These are generally low-fluence pulsed dye lasers (PDL) at 585-595nm.
- 41 patients, double blind, randomized clinical trial. Acne severity decrease from a score of 3.8 to 1.9 in the PDL group vs. 3.6 to 3.5 in the placebo.
- 40 individuals receiving 1-2 treatments with the PDL. No significant differences.
Intense Pulsed Light
Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) devices use light and heat, known as LHE technology, to trigger the destruction of the P. acnes bacteria.
- 19 patients – 85% had a >50% improvement in their acne vulgaris lesions following x2/week therapy for 4 weeks.
- 14 patients received 5 treatments every 2-4 weeks. 2-3 passes at 10J/cm2. At 6/12, clearance rates of 72% for noninflammatory lesions and 73% for inflammatory lesions.
Lasers that destroy sebaceous glands
Several laser systems have been used to treat inflammatory acne vulgaris by destroying the sebaceous glands including near-infrared lasers, 1320nm CoolTouch®, 1450nm SmoothBeam®, 1540nm erbium glass Aramis® and radiofrequency devices.
1450nm SmoothBeam® laser
27 patients. Acne on back, 4 treatments at 3-week intervals. The average fluence used was 18J/cm2
- At 6/12 – a 98% reduction in inflammatory lesions after 4 treatments.
- At follow-up – 100% lesion clearance was seen in all but one patient.
19 patients with facial acne.
- 37% reduction after 1 treatment, 58% after 2 treatments and 83% after 3 treatments.
- Side effects included transient erythema and oedema. Topical anaesthetics were utilized to minimize the discomfort.
Indocyanine green (ICG) + diode laser (810nm-900nm)
ICG, a fluorescent dye used for imaging purposes, acts as a sensitizing agent to help target the sebaceous glands. The combined use of ICG with diode lasers showed a reduction in inflammatory acne vulgaris lesions
- 22 patients with acne of the face or back. The targeted areas were stained with the ICG for 5-15 minutes and then irradiated with a diode laser. Multiple treatments were required.
A monopolar radiofrequency (RF) with ThermaCool® device has been trialled:
22 patients were treated twice with the average fluence of 72J/cm2.
- At 1-8 months – excellent responses were seen in 82%, modest responses in 9%, and no response in 9%
- Patients were administered topical anaesthesia because treatment with this device can cause a great deal of discomfort.
- Gold MH. Efficacy of Lasers and PDT for the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris Skin Therapy Lett. 2007;12(10):1-6
- Bowes LE, Manstein D, Anderson RR. Lasers Med Sci 2003; 18(Suppl 1):S6-7
- Dierickx CC. Lasers Surg Med 2004; 34(S16):66
- Elman M, Lask G. J Cosmet Laser Ther 2004; 6(2):91-5
- Friedman PM, Jih MH, Kimyai-Asadi A, et al. Dermatol Surg 2004 30(2 Pt 1):147-51
- Gold MH, Goldman MP. Dermatol Surg 2004; 30(8):1077-83
- Gold MH, Rao J, Goldman MP, et al.. J Drugs Dermatol 2005; 4(1):64-70
- Gold MH. J Lasers Surg Med 2003; 15(Suppl):46
- Gold MH. Lasers Med Sci 2007; 22(2):67-72
- Goldman MP, Boyce S. J Drugs Dermatol 2003; 2(4):393-6
- Kawada A, Aragane Y, Kameyama H, et al. J Dermatol Sci 2002; 30(2):129-35
- Lloyd JR, Mirkov M.. Lasers Surg Med 2002; 31(2):115-20
- Orringer JS, Kang S, Hamilton T, et al. J Am Med Assoc. 2004; 291(23):2834-9
- Paithankar DY, Ross EV, Saleh BA, et al. Lasers Surg Med 2002 31(2):106-14
- Papageorgiou P, Katsambas A, Chu A. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142(5):973-8
- Ruiz-Esparza J, Gomez JB. Dermatol Surg 2003; 29(4):333-9
- Seaton ED, Charakida A, Mouser PE, et al. Lancet 2003; 362(9393):1347-52
- Shalita AR, Harth Y, Elman M. Clin Application Notes 2001; 9(1):1-4
- Sigurdsson V, Knulst AC, van Weelden H. Dermatology 1997; 194(3):256-60
- Taub AF. J Drugs Dermatol 2004; (1 Suppl):S8-25
- Tuchin VV, Genina EA, Bashkatov AN, et al. Lasers Surg Med 2003; 33(5):296-310
On DermNet NZ:
Books about skin diseases:
See the DermNet NZ bookstore